Evaluations of the learning environment 4.1.1
In Study I, the development of a questionnaire, designed to tap into adult students’ perceptions of the learning environment, was described. With regard to the construction of scales, the factorial structure extracted parallelled well with the theoretical assumptions, as the original scales were mostly replicated.
The associations between the learning environment scales were consistent with prior research (Marsh & Roche 1993; Stringer & Irwing, 1998). As students’ course satisfaction and their experience of its interestingness were strongly associated with the students’ perceptions of the teacher’s competence, it seems that teachers indeed played a crucial role in how positively the students experience their course. Interestingly, in Substudy 1, students’ evaluations of the quality of teaching methods, pedagogical materials and assessment methods were only weakly correlated, which demonstrates how these core aspects of pedagogical practice do not necessarily go hand in hand.
These independent patterns of correlations also suggest that the questionnaire was sensitive enough to differentiate between these instructional aspects.
As to the students’ experiences and self-evaluations, self-reported effort and attainment, and participation had clearly different patterns of relations with instructional practices, the latter being mostly independent from them. Consequently it seems that effortful engagement is distinct and different from active participation in the course. This is supportive of arguments that students’
preferences of pedagogical choices may differ importantly concerning different
contrasted to more active involvement (McKeachie, 1997), so the activeness is perhaps more a function of personal preferences rather than instruction as such.
However, some differences in scale relations were observed between Substudies 1 and 2, indicating that concerning different courses, first, students’ perceptions of the assessment practices were now more closely linked to their evaluations of other aspects, and second, in Substudy 2, participation was moderately associated with interestingness and the quality of pedagogical materials, while these associations were not observed in Substudy 1. This may be interpreted as an indication of the relational function of students’ self- evaluation: different context results in different emphasis and relations given by students to their personal effort and engagement. With regard to courses conducted in a more traditional lecture format, the personal activeness during the course was unrelated to instructional aspects, whereas concerning a course with a lengthy period of cooperative learning and practical tasks in field conditions, activeness was clearly associated with students’ perceptions of some other aspects of the learning environment. Studies II to IV all concerned similar courses to that examined in Substudy 2, and relationships between ELEQ scales were mostly positive and significant in these studies. Thus it seems plausible that as course characteristics are related to the level of course evaluations (cf. Feldman, 1978, 1984, 2007), they may also affect the relationships between evaluations of different aspects.
In sum, the evaluation of the learning environment questionnaire was able to differentiate between the expected dimensions, and the observed relations between the resulting scales paralleled prior findings (e.g., Marsh & Roche 1993; Stringer & Irwing, 1998). However, the relatively high correlations among the ELEQ scales in further studies (II to IV) as well as the predictive sequence among course evaluations found in Study III reflect the intertwined nature of students’ perceptions of various dimensions of learning and instruction (e.g., Marsh & Roche, 1997; Remedios & Lieberman, 2008; Stringer & Irwing, 1998). This seemed to be the main trend across studies of this dissertation, despite some differences noted above.
Students’ achievement goal orientations 4.1.2
With regard to students’ goal orientations, the person-centred approach is based on distinct configurations of emphasis of the goal orientation dimensions. Following this, in Studies I, II, and IV students were grouped based on their achievement goal orientations, and these groups were then described in terms of mean levels, standardized scores, and between-group differences in goal orientation variables. Although, in the light of existing knowledge, no strict assumptions can be stated about “universal profiles” that should emerge, certain assumptions were made based on empirical evidence from studies conducted on
51 samples of Finnish youths, using the same instrumentation and analytical strategies (Tuominen-Soini et al., 2008, 2011, 2012). It was expected that at least the mainly mastery/learning-oriented group, success/performance-oriented group, and most probably a group oriented more towards avoidance of self- investment and effort could be found. Many prior studies have been conducted on younger learners, and given the special context of the present study (selective sample and assumed competitive ethos of the institution), it was interesting to compare whether similar profiles could be identified.
In Studies I, II, and IV, similar analytical strategy with latent class cluster analysis was used to form groups of students based on their achievement goal orientation profiles. Solutions in individual studies were chosen according to statistical criteria, after which the groups were labelled informatively, based on interpretations of mean differences in achievement goal orientations and the standardized mean score profiles (see Figure 1). Altogether five distinct profiles were identified, and three of these were consistently found in all studies. These three consistent groups were labelled mastery-oriented (Study I 14%; Study II 33%; Study IV 11% of subsamples), indifferent (Study I 21%; Study II 32%; Study IV 41%), and avoidance-oriented (Study I 21%; Study II 20%; study IV 21%). In addition to these, in Studies I and II, a success-oriented profile was identified (Study I 44%; Study II 15%), and in Study IV, a performance-oriented profile was identified (27%). In the following subchapters, these profiles are described in more detail, and their congruence to prior research is outlined.
F
Figure 1. Standardized mean scores on achievement goal orientation scales as a function of group membership in Studies I, II, and IV.
Note: MINT = mastery-intrinsic orientation, MEXT = mastery-extrinsic orientation, PAPR = performance-approach orientation, PAVO = performance-avoidance orientation, WAVO = work-avoidance orientation
53 The mastery-focused profile
In general, mastery-oriented students’ ratings expressed an emphasis on mas- tery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations, and less so on performance- approach, performance-avoidance, and work-avoidance orientations. These students differed significantly in Studies I and IV from all the other groups in their ratings of mastery-intrinsic orientation, which were the highest of all. In Study II, mastery-oriented and success-oriented students did not differ in their ratings of mastery-intrinsic orientation. Furthermore, the mastery-oriented group largely differed from the more maladaptive groups (indifferent and avoidance-oriented), especially in their ratings of performance-avoidance and work-avoidance orientations, which were lower in comparison. An exception from this was Study IV, in which the mastery-oriented students did not differ from indifferent and work-avoidance oriented students in their ratings of performance-avoidance orientation, and with regard to ratings of work- avoidance orientation, they did not differ from the indifferent students. These between-group differences indicate that (a) the most important goal for mastery- oriented students was to acquire new knowledge and increase their personal competence and understanding, followed by (b) aims of absolute success, with the criteria of getting good grades, again without comparison with other students. Furthermore, (c) they seem to have little concern for judgments of incompetence or failure with respect to other students, nor do they emphasize the goals of minimizing their work and effort, or avoiding challenging situations that might postulate such engagement. As to group sizes across the studies, the mastery-oriented group was smallest in Studies I and IV. When compared to studies conducted with Finnish samples of lower and upper secondary school students and using the same instrumentation, the mastery-oriented group sizes observed in them are usually quite similar or just slightly bigger. Tuominen- Soini and her colleagues (2008, 2011, 2012) identified a mastery-focused profile in four studies and it consisted of 18% and 21% of a lower secondary school student sample, 33% of a sample that included both lower and upper secondary school students, and 36% of an upper secondary school student sample. Given this, it seems that the mastery-focused profile in the military student population is equally common, or perhaps marginally more rare, than in samples of younger Finnish learners in a general educational context. This may be an effect of age or gender (my sample was almost solely male), or the educational context, but this is beyond my data. I would assume all of these factors to play a role. This will be discussed in more detail later.
With regard to studies on adult learners’ achievement goal orientation profiles that have used different instrumentations, certain profiles that can be described as mainly mastery-focused have been identified. Despite differences in measures and clustering procedures, these profiles and their incidence seem
informative. Daniels and her colleagues (2008) identified a group consisting of 27% of their sample that was characterized by the endorsement of predominantly mastery goals as compared to performance goals. Bembenutty (1999) identified a group of students with substantially high scores in task-goal orientation that consisted of 44% of his sample. K olić-V ehovec, Rončević, and Bajšanski (2008) identified a group with a distinct emphasis on the mastery orientation scale, and low emphasis on the work-avoidance and performance scales, which consisted of 19% of their sample. Cano and Berben (2009) also reported a corresponding group (20% of their sample) that displayed low emphasis on performance-avoidance goals and a moderately strong emphasis on mastery-approach goals. Table 3 reports a detailed description of these compatible groups concerning all profiles.
Success- and performance-focused profiles
Students with a success-oriented achievement goal orientation profile (Studies I and II) emphasized both mastery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations as well as a performance-approach orientation, but emphasized the performance- avoidance orientation less, and had low levels of work-avoidance orientation. These students differed significantly from indifferent and avoidance-oriented students in their ratings of mastery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations. Furthermore, their endorsement of performance-approach orientation tended to be higher when compared to other groups: they had a significantly higher mean than mastery-oriented and indifferent students in Studies I and II, and a significantly higher mean than avoidance-oriented students in Study II. Then again, in both studies, success-oriented students differed significantly in their higher ratings of performance-avoidance orientation when compared to mastery-oriented students. Consequently, it seems that the strong endorsement of mastery goals in this group resembles that of mastery-oriented students, but their levels of performance-approach goal endorsement is generally higher when compared to mastery-oriented students. It follows that, in addition to success- oriented students seeming to strive for mastery, learning, and understanding, according to standards of both absolute and relative success, these students also display some concerns about comparison with other students and displaying their competence, and they seem to worry about judgments of incompetence to some extent. All in all, these comparisons suggest that when compared to the mastery-oriented group, success-oriented students have more in common with them than when compared to avoidance-oriented or indifferent groups. When comparing present group sizes to those of Tuominen-Soini and colleagues (2008, 2011, 2012), it seems that also in their studies, quite varying numbers (10%, 31% and 36%) were identified in these profiles, of which the smallest group size came from the sample of upper secondary school students. Perhaps
55 the group size in Study I (44%) can be considered larger than seems usual, but it must be noted that in other studies this large group size was not replicated.
Another multiple-goal profile that was identified in Study IV was the performance-oriented profile. Performance-oriented students displayed relatively high levels of both mastery orientations, but also an equally high level of the performance-approach orientation, and moderately high relative levels of performance-avoidance and work-avoidance orientations. These students differed significantly from avoidance-oriented students in their higher scores of mastery-intrinsic orientation, and had also a significantly higher level of mastery-extrinsic orientation than indifferent and avoidance-oriented students. In this, the performance-oriented profile closely resembles the success-oriented profile described above. However, performance-oriented students had by far the highest levels of both performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations. The performance-oriented students emphasized learning and understanding as well as good grades and absolute success (much like the success-oriented students), had strong concerns about displaying their competence relative to others, and sought to avoid judgments of incompetence or generally avoiding appearing inferior to other students. Tuominen-Soini and her colleagues (2008) were also able to identify a similar profile in a sample of lower and upper secondary school students that consisted of 17% of their participants.
Regarding prior studies with different instrumentations, Daniels and her colleagues (2008) identified a multiple-goals group consisting of 29% of their sample that was characterized by strong endorsement of both mastery and performance goals, thus indicating a somewhat similar focus as the success- oriented group. Following this logic, further groups that are plausibly similar have been identified. Bembenutty (1999) identified a group consisting of 31% of the sample with a high score in both mastery and performance goals, and .ROLü- V ehovec and colleagues (2008) identified a group of students with high ratings of mastery and performance orientations and low ratings of work-avoidance orientation; this group consisted of 29% of their sample. Finally, Cano and Berben (2009) were able to identify a group (24% of the sample) that had high scores on all achievement goal orientations, but especially on performance- approach goal orientation, which also resembles the success-oriented profile with respect to compatible dimensions.
Indifferent students
It is challenging to describe this group, as expressions used to explicate the relative strength of certain goal endorsements include wordings such as “focused”, “emphasized” or “most important”, that do not seem to fit here. These indifferent students do not emphasize any specific class of achievement goals:
the factual characterizing aspect in their profile is absence of emphasis. The students in the indifferent group expressed a below or close to below average emphasis on all orientations, yet had relatively high scores of work-avoidance orientation (Studies I and II). They therefore displayed a kind of disengaged pattern of motivational goals, but simultaneously, they seem to wish to spare themselves from working hard or facing challenges in achievement situations. Indifferent students differed from the mastery- and success-oriented in their lower ratings of mastery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations (Studies I, II, and IV). More distinctive than the mean differences, in this case, is their profile when described by standardized mean scores: although the figure for the profile seems to fluctuate to some extent, their scores largely display the absence of a clear relative emphasis (see Figure 1). Tuominen-Soini and her colleagues (2011, 2012) have also identified a similar profile: in their studies, 39% and 36% of lower secondary school students and 34% of upper secondary school students displayed this kind of indifferent profile.
The different dimensions being used makes the comparison of this profile to prior research especially challenging. In spite of this, it can be stated that the low-motivation profile identified by Daniels and her colleagues (2008) consisting of 21% of their sample, and the profile (25% of the sample) identified by Bembenutty (1999) with especially low ratings of task goal orientation as well as performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations, seem to parallel my findings here. Cano and Berben (2009) also identified a group (27% of the sample) that had very low emphasis on all goal orientations, which indicates, in a sense, an undefined profile that resembles the indifferent-profile identified in my study.
The avoidance-focused profile
The avoidance-oriented group had low scores in both mastery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations, above average in performance-approach and performance-avoidance orientations, and in Studies I and IV, the highest scores in the work-avoidance orientation. This group mostly had the lowest ratings in the mastery-intrinsic and mastery-extrinsic orientations, and differed significantly from the mastery- and success-oriented groups. Thus it seems that the most important characteristics of this group were their clearly low endorsement of goals that include gaining competence and learning new things, and success in studies and good grades, but instead, they displayed emphasized strivings to avoid working and effort in general. In addition to this, their standardized mean score profiles indicated a slight relative emphasis on the performance-avoidance goal orientation. In sum, these students mainly aimed to minimize the effort and time spent on studying, yet also had some concerns about social comparison and judgments of incompetence.
57 When comparing the avoidance-oriented students to the indifferent students, it seems that these two groups are closer to each other and more distinct from the mastery- and success-oriented groups.
The avoidance-focused profile was also identified by Tuominen-Soini and her colleagues (2008, 2011, 2012): 6% and 7% of samples consisting of both lower and upper secondary school students, 12% of the sample of lower secondary school students, and 20% of the sample of upper secondary school students displayed a similar profile. As to other studies that have examined goal orientation profiles, few have employed work-avoidance scales, but .ROLü- Vehovec and colleagues (2008) identified a profile (16% of their sample) with high scores on work-avoidance scales and low scores on mastery and performance scales, which partly converges with my findings.
T
Table 3. Comparison of goal orientation groups (Part 1)
Note 1)
Despite the label “performance goals”, it seems that on the basis of the exemplary item “If I can, I want to get better grades in this class than most of the other students” (Daniels et al., 2008, p.591), this scale mainly taps performance-approach goal preferences.
Note 2) Again, despite the label “performance orientation”, it seems that based on what the
authors outlined and what the exemplary item “I feel satisfied when I do better than other students” implies (Kolec-Vehovec et al., 2008, p.110), this scale more appropriately taps performance-approach goal preferences.
Profiles, group size Study Participants Achievement goal
dimensions
Profiles corresponding tto the mastery- oriented profile Daniels et al., 2008 College students,
N=1002 Mastery goals, performance-approach goals 1) ”Mastery”, n= 275, 27% endorsement of predominantly mastery goals (i.e., more mastery than performance)
Bembenutty, 1999 College students, N=102
Task goal orientation, performance-approach goal orientation, performance- avoidance goal orientation
”High mastery” n=45, 44% high on task-goal orientation Kolic-Vehovec et al., 2008 University students, N=352 Mastery orientation, performance orientation 2), work-avoidance orientation “Mastery-oriented group” n=64, 18% high on mastery orientation scale, low on work-avoidance and performance orientations
Cano & Berben, 2009 University students, N=680
Mastery-approach, mastery- avoidance, performance- approach, performance- avoidance
“Low AG, but moderately high mastery approach” n=139, 20%, low on performance- avoidance goals, moderately on high mastery approach
59
T
Table 3. Comparison of goal orientation groups (Part 2)
(n, % oof sample) and characteristic goal configurations Profiles corresponding
tto the success-oriented p
profile
Profiles corresponding tto the indifferent profile
Profiles corresponding tto the avoidance- oriented profile
Other profiles
”Multiple goals” n=289, 29% high mastery and performance goals
”Low motivation” n=206, 21% low mastery and performance goals N/A ”Performance” n= 232, 23% endorsement of predominantly performance goals (i.e., more performance than mastery) “Combined
high mastery and high performance-approach” n=32, 31%
high on task-goal orientation and high performance- approach goal orientation
“Low mastery, low performance-approach, and low performance- avoidance” n=25, 24%
low on task, low on performance-approach, and low on performance-avoidance goal orientation. N/A N/A “Mastery–performance group”, n=96, 27%, high results on mastery and performance orientations, low on work-avoidance orientation N/A “Work-avoidance